I get the feeling in this forum tha 1

[ChasBean1]

I get the feeling in this forum that many of us were at one time involved in the nuclear field but career opportunities have brought us into other fields... I myself am in HVAC as there seems to be a need for building commissioning. Not many buildings work right after they're first built. There's not many of us that are nukes anymore, and some of us that have been convinced in the past that nuclear is the way to go might now be convinced (through media and realization of the waste issue, along with the progress of cogeneration and other fossil fuel advances) that the nuclear field is near dead.

Here we are now, facing political issues, some of which no doubt result from our interests in foreign energy sources. I wonder if we have become numb to our energy production methods due to a prospering economy through a period in the nineties, a seeming resemblance of relative world peace (at least as seen by the U.S.

What are your thoughts on this? What about the 26,000 year half-life of depleted uranium (or whatever it was - I'm starting to forget things in this field I used to know!).

Your thoughts on this are welcomed and appreciated.

-CB

 

[lengould]

Building gas-fired baseload in the present situation is, if not criminally stupid, at least stupidly fraudulent. (kidding of course).

Pechez les vaches.

 

[ChasBean1]

Such awesome, well-thought, well-written posts! (just now looked two plus years after the initial post).

Ccw, cynnical and right on the money. The storage, band-aid approach, agreed. Contracts and finances understood now are in the 10-30 year range. Not many builders guarantee no leakage in a 26,000 year deal for the first 10,000 years... No plutonium in my backyard, though. I'm more comfortable burning oil within 100 ft of where I sleep (granted I was on a nuke ship, but my house doesn't have a poly and lead primary and secondary shield).

Electricpete - how are you? My last look at France is a while ago and I saw 80% energy from zoomies... Processing and dealing with waste knowledge about France is what I lack. If I believe US media, probably all their waste is going to N. Korea and Iran so they can build bombs, correct?

Exnavynuke, totally accurate. In commissioning buildings, I try to get a few quality control measures implemented. They are usually "value-engineered" out because anything that has anything to do with quality while adding first cost is avoided. We bow to the money people and adhere to their short-sighted decisions in order to do the job in the first place.

Is there a way that nukes can survive the decisions of money moguls? Getting it built right is huge time and labor. I don't see anyone with the farsightedness now to accomplish this... The world now seems to be about making the big score.

CB

 

[hydrae]

ChasBean1
I seem to recall about a year ago, France was debating at the politcal level what to do with the glass they make containing the 30 year half-life material, deep bury or bunker and guard it. I think it was in the direction of bunker and guard, I don't know. As for the long lived transuranics, that gets recycled back it the reactors.

I admire their plant design, one design, many sites unlike in the US where every site has it own design with (in most cases) no two alike.

Hydrae

 

[electricpete]

President Bush's speech at Calvert Cliff's nuclear plant

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050622.html#

"Today, there are 103 nuclear plants in America. They produce about 20 percent of the nation's electricity without producing a single pound of air pollution or greenhouse gases. I think you told me that 20 percent of all Maryland's electricity is produced here at this plant. Without these nuclear plants, America would released nearly 700 million metric tons more carbon dioxide into the air each year. That's about the same amount of carbon dioxide that now comes from all our cars and trucks.

Across this state, Maryland has looked to Calvert Cliffs to keep their lights on and to keep their land, air and water clean. In other words, you're generating electricity and helping the environment at the same time. That's an important combination of talents and -- it's an important combination of -- that the American people have got to understand it's possible when we expand nuclear power.

Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy. People out here practice a lot of safety, they're good at it. You've got nuclear engineers and experts that spend a lot of time maintaining a safe environment. Just ask the people that work here. You wouldn't be coming here if it wasn't safe, I suspect. (Laughter.)

Some Americans remember the problems of the nuclear plants -- that the nuclear plants had back in the 1970s. We all remember those days. That frightened a lot of folks. People have got to understand that advances in sciences and engineering and plant design have made nuclear plants far safer, far safer than ever before. Workers and managers are trained and committed and spend hours working on nuclear safety, and that's good. And they do such a good job here at Calvert Cliffs that this was the first nuclear plant in America to gets its operating license renewed. And I congratulate you. (Applause.)

There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner, safer nation. Slowly but surely, people are beginning to look at the facts. One of the reasons I've come to this plant is to help people understand the difference between fact and fiction. Yet, even though there has been a growing consensus over time, America has not ordered a nuclear plant since the 1970s. By contrast, France has built 58 nuclear plants in the same period of time. By contrast, China now has eight nuclear plants in the works and plans to build at least 40 more over the next two decades.

In the 21st century, our nation will need more electricity, more safe, clean, reliable electricity. It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again. (Applause.)

We're taking practical steps to encourage new construction of power plants. Three years ago, we launched the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative, which is a $1.1 billion partnership between government and industry to coordinate the ordering of new plants. The Department of Energy is working with Congress to reduce uncertainty in the nuclear plant licensing process. Look, you don't want to go out and build a plant, spend all the money, and have the license jerked at the last minute. (Laughter.) Nobody's going to spend money if that's the case.

And so we want to have a rational way to move forward, and one rational way to move forward is to provide incentives for new construction such as federal risk insurance, to help the builders of the first four plants -- that's what's now embedded in the energy bill -- first four plants against lawsuits and bureaucratic obstacles and other delays beyond their control. In other words, there's a rational approach for the federal government -- on the one hand, to convince the American people nuclear power is safe, that it makes sense for our consumers, it makes sense for the long-term economic security of our country to expand nuclear power; and on the other hand, say to those who are risking capital, here's some help, here's some ways we can provide incentive for you to move forward with the construction of plants.

Delivering a good energy bill is part of a comprehensive agenda, but there's some other things we need to do..."

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[ccw]

Hats off to France. They know how to get it done. 70% of their electric power grid is nuclear. What does U.S. do? Spend $billions on Yucca Mountain only to have congress critters declare it DOA. The U.S.NRC, DOE, FERC, EPRI, Senate and House Energy Committees, etc., need to get rid of their deadwood and get on with the program!

 

[lengould]

Actually, I've seen references saying France's electrical supply was 77.7% nuclear in 2003, though I'm not sure whether that's including the large amounts exported to Switzerland, Italy, Spain and Britain.

"France, where nuclear power constituted 77.7 percent of the electricity market in 2003"

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/newnuc2.html

Good industry worldwide overviews at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/newnuc2.html

and EIA's Nuclear Timeline at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuctimeline.html

Interesting to follow Eskom's (and BNFL/Mitsubishi/?China?) PBMR, "The PBMR project entails the building of a demonstration reactor project at Koeberg near Cape Town and a pilot fuel plant at Pelindaba near Pretoria. The current schedule is to start construction in 2007 and for the demonstration plant to be completed by 2010. The fist commercial PBMR modules are planned for 2013." at

https://www.pbmr.com/

Pechez les vaches.